Wikipedia tells me that Homo Habilis left Africa about 1.75 myo and eventually became Neanderthals in Europe...

>Wikipedia tells me that Homo Habilis left Africa about 1.75 myo and eventually became Neanderthals

Homo heidelbergensis, actually. But the date you mention is synchronicitous - a metacarpal from Kenya dates to 1.42MyaYBP;

>m.pnas.org/content/111/1/121.long
>A newly discovered metacarpal from Kaitio, Kenya, dates to 1.42 Mya

>so-called "modern humans", homo sapiens sapiens, left Africa and interbred with Neanderthals leading to the modern non-African races

Non-Africans (And some Africans, like B) are all members of Y-haplogroup BT.

Y-haplogroup BT is defined by the P91-9T mutation, while all A Y-haplogroups are defined by P91-8T - that is, Y-BT=P91-9T, and Y-A=P91-8T.

The thing is that Chimps have P91-9T, which means that P91-9T is ancestral and P91-8T is the mutation. This would be why the remains at Jebel Irhoud, dated to 322KyaYBP, resembled neanderthals - humans and neanderthals split roughly 765KyaYBP, and what we're seeing is a Eurasian colonization of Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africans emerged 37KyaYBP, when these Eurasians bred with an African hominid which was basically a proto-human.

>Also, this supposed h. sapiens sapiens species came from Africa in modern times and yet mixed with Neanderthals to produce offspring that look nothing like negroids?

The negroid phenotype was created 37KyaYBP when Eurasians bred with an African hominid.

>Is this all politically correct bullshit

Basically. But moreover, the truth also defies many scientists' life's work. They won't throw in the towel until they absolutely have to, and sadly they may have to grow old and die before the truth can be known.

Also, I just want to deny any racist motivation in this - R1b is found among the Hausa at a 59% rate, and among the Khoisan at 10%. Blacks are the result of whites from Oceania mixing with an African ape, and East Asians are pure examples of the archaic human strain.

Not OP - I'm .

The MCPH1 gene also shows signs of introgression;

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635020/
>The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development
>Instead, our data are consistent with a model of population subdivision followed by introgression to account for the origin of the D allele
>the lineage leading to modern humans was split from another Homo lineage, and the two lineages remained in reproductive isolation for ≈1,100,000 years
>During this period of reproductive isolation, the modern human lineage was fixed for the non-D allele at the microcephalin locus, whereas the other Homo lineage was fixed for the D allele
>These two alleles are differentiated by a large number of sequence differences accumulated during the prolonged isolation of the two populations
>At or sometime before ≈37,000 years ago, a (possibly rare) interbreeding event occurred between the two lineages, bringing a copy of the D allele into anatomically modern humans
>Furthermore, the worldwide frequency distribution of the D allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in sub-Saharan Africa (29), suggests, but does not necessitate, admixture with an archaic Eurasian population

>snpedia.com/index.php/Rs2442513

Orange is AA, green is AC, and blue is CC. The three letter codes can be read here;

>snpedia.com/index.php/Help_(population_diversity)

YRI, LWK and MKK are all African populations, and ASW is the acronym for American blacks.

If you look at pic related, you can see that CC only exists in Africans.

Only homozygotic Africans express microcephaly, but the point is that the CC homozygote genotype only exists in African populations. The low IQ's of every sub-Saharan African country is the evidence required to prove that blacks are clincally retarded, and that the C allele is associated with low IQ - as you can see, AC is also almost entirely limited to the African populations.

>Meanwhile africans sat on their continent and never had to adapt to new environments or learn new things

Africans are the adaption to Africa. The white and East Asian phenotypes are the most ancient, and date back to about 1.1MyaYBP - see and .

So for example, modern Khoisan display Steaopygia (Depicted in the images) and slanted eyes. They retain many archaic traits, and European cave art depicts Steatopygia.

Y-haplogroups C, F and K are the oldest in Europe, and K evolved from F in Oceania along with C;

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707640956
>Like haplogroup C, haplogroup F therefore appears to have an origin in the south—in particular, in Melanesia

Quite simply, an Oceanic origin of humanity is undeniable. We didn't evolve in Africa or even Eurasia - instead, we evolved in Oceania in a land that vaguely resembled the Mu and Lemuria of fantastic theory.

All native Americans are members of a BT-derived Y-haplogroup - predominantly, they're C, R and Q. C and F seem to have migrated together just about everywhere. This represents the paternal lines of two men from Oceania, and incest was so common back then that they were most likely brothers;

>siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/incestuous-secrets-of-neanderthals-revealed-in-new-research-on-50000-year-old-female/
>Paabo said it was possible the Altai Neanderthals were 'such a small population that you've hardly any other choice' in sex partners, hence the interbreeding, though it matches findings of Neanderthanls from Europe

We used to be much more genetically diverse, because of isolation and founder effects - a handful of people are thought to have created the entire genetic diversity of Australia;

>arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/australia-was-colonized-by-a-single-group-50000-years-ago/

The Egyptians were a colony of these Mutians, and their royalty practiced incest.

Forgot the image.

>Africans are the adaption to Africa. The white and East Asian phenotypes are the most ancient
>Quite simply, an Oceanic origin of humanity is undeniable. We didn't evolve in Africa or even Eurasia - instead, we evolved in Oceania in a land that vaguely resembled the Mu and Lemuria of fantastic theory.
okay buddy pack it up
you

It would be funny if Africans were a product of genetic regression.

>lol do you even know how this evolushun thing works? we know by fact that hominids that started hairy and dark ended up pale skinned because the fucking neanderthals were! What, did they evolve from pale skinned apes?

I'm pretty sure hairy apes are pale skinned, like if you shave a chimp. Human ancestors likely started out hairy and pale, and gradually evolved to become darker skinned as they lost their hair, before becoming pale again recently after migrating to colder, higher latitudes.

that appears to be what
is suggesting. but i don't know anything about genetics and wouldn't be able to tell if they're bullshitting or not.

So as a hypothetical, suppose it is found out Africans are the product of Eurasians having sex with some type of African protohuman ape with Eurasians having left Africa long before(or came from some place else).

How does this change things?

no more we wuzzing

Ok so what I'm getting as the more reasonable theory is that an early humanoid ape left Africa, then evolved in higher life forms in Eurasia, and then returned to Africa to turn a less evolved ape into modern negroids.

My question then is:

What is the relationship between Neanderthals, Sapiens, modern Whites, and modern East Asians? And in what region did each of those evolve? What is the story of each of those?

>and then returned to Africa to turn a less evolved ape into modern negroids.
Not only to Africa, but also to Australia and every single place populated by australoids at the time, and that is like every square mile from Iraq to New Zealand and even beyond.

Basically, the whole world except for Europe and north Asia and likely north America.

>negroids were nowhere to be found outside of Africa after that?

>How could H. sapiens sapiens evolve in Africa, spread out all over the world, and yet negroids were nowhere to be found outside of Africa after that?
Because if you were dark skinned, your chances of survival were slimmer in wintry regions.

>Is this all politically correct bullshit?
No, /pol/, science is not politically correct bullshit.

>look nothing like negroids?
The main difference was the height. We have the same height now. (almost)

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000421